Anslem defines "God" as "a being than which no greater can be conceived"; he argues that such a being, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Then we can conceive of a being greater than God (namely, one that exists in reality too). But this by definition is impossible. So God can't exist just in the understanding but not in reality.
How did Gaunilo object to Anselm's argument?
Anslem defines "God" as "a being than which no greater can be conceived"; he argues that such a being, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Then we can conceive of a being greater than God (namely, one that exists in reality too). But this by definition is impossible. So God can't exist just in the understanding but not in reality.
How did Gaunilo object to Anselm's argument?
This is Plantinga's objection.
Anslem defines "God" as "a being than which no greater can be conceived"; he argues that such a being, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Then we can conceive of a being greater than God (namely, one that exists in reality too). But this by definition is impossible. So God can't exist just in the understanding but not in reality.
How did Gaunilo object to Anselm's argument?
Let's define "Paradise Island" as an island than which no greater island can be conceived. By a similar reasoning, this island must exist. But this is absurd.
Anslem defines "God" as "a being than which no greater can be conceived"; he argues that such a being, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Then we can conceive of a being greater than God (namely, one that exists in reality too). But this by definition is impossible. So God can't exist just in the understanding but not in reality.
How did Gaunilo object to Anselm's argument?
This is Kant's objection.